Have a question?
033 3772 0409

Reported Case

L (A Child : Fact Finding) EWFC B13 (9 February 2022) - Judge holds that an abused girl should remain in care and not be returned to the mother who failed to protect her (9 March 2022)

Date: 09/03/2022
Duncan Lewis, Reported Case Solicitors,  L (A Child : Fact Finding) EWFC B13 (9 February 2022) - Judge holds that an abused girl should remain in care and not be returned to the mother who failed to protect her

A judge has held that a girl who suffered abuse and was failed by her mother should not be returned home but instead remain in a foster placement with a care plan in place.

Lisa (not her real name), alleged that she was raped by her step-father (SF) living in the house with her and her mother (M) when she was 7 years old.

However, when she reported the incident to M, she was victim blamed and later faced traumatic threats of violence, the court was told.

Lisa was made subject to an interim care order after making the complaints about the abuse last year.
The judge found that the child had been sexually abused and that it was a clear case of failure to protect by the M. The judge ordered that she should remain in the care of the local authority.

The case was complicated by the family background. M and SF are related. Lisa’s parents were married (2005) but Lisa’s father is not believed to have been involved in her life and his current whereabouts are unknown. In 2003, M came to this jurisdiction. Following her divorce in 2011 M formed a relationship with SF. Whilst pregnant with Lisa, M had to give up work and with M in financial difficulty, SF offered help and she moved into his home. Lisa was born in late 2006 and until she was aged about 11 (in 2018) she believed SF to be her biological father.

On 22 June 2021, Lisa made allegations to her teachers at school of both sexual and physical abuse. Consequently, the police became involved and became subject to police protective powers. Lisa underwent an ABE interview process. She was placed in care pursuant to section 20 and then under an interim care order when the local authority issued proceedings. Since 22 June 2021, Lisa has been separate from M and SF and has not had any contact with them and this remains the same situation.

The judge held that “there should be a care order with respect to Lisa”, and approved the care plan. This outcome is consistent with Lisa’s wishes and feelings. M recognises that any suggestion of a return to her care would be unrealistic at this time. Lisa’s needs include a stable and secure home placement. Her educational needs require the same. This is only consistent with the care order.

It is clear, the judge said, “M does not have the capability to meet Lisa’s needs. As to change in circumstances this decision will leave Lisa where she is. A change based around return home would be damaging to her at this time.”


This case highlights that a child does not necessarily need to give live evidence for a finding to be made of historic sexual abuse and failure to protect.


Representation: Child care director Laila Bhunnoo, for the second respondent, the child in the case.



 

Find full details of this case on Bailii’s website here.
Call us now on 033 3772 0409 or click here to send online enquiry.
Duncan Lewis is the trading name of Duncan Lewis (Solicitors) Limited. Registered Office is 143-149 Fenchurch St, London, EC3M 6BL. Company Reg. No. 3718422. VAT Reg. No. 718729013. A list of the company's Directors is displayed at the registered offices address. Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority . Offices all across London and in major cities in the UK. ©Duncan Lewis >>Legal Disclaimer, Copyright & Privacy Policy. Duncan Lewis do not accept service by email.